Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TAXES ON UNHEALTHY goods can reduce the level of consumption for people in lower socio-economic groups, a new report has found.
The study by the Lancet found that low-income households tend to be more greatly affected by price changes compared to high income homes. However, a FactCheck conducted by TheJournal.ie found that, while consumption might be reduced, the net effect on obesity rates was negligible.
In October last year, the Government announced levy on drinks which contain a significant amount of sugar.
The so-called “sugar tax”, which had been well-flagged in advance, means consumers will pay 30 cent per litre on drinks which have more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 millilitres. The charge will kick in this year.
Debate has raged about how effective the levy will be, especially in relation to obesity rates – something which the Government has consistently cited as the main reason for the tax.
According to the Lancet study, evidence shows that high-income families generally consume more, and spend more, on alcohol, soft drinks and snacks, compared to those on less money.
It said: “Increased taxes on unhealthy products will therefore affect a larger number of high-income households than low-income households, meaning that the revenues generated by taxes will come disproportionately from high income households.
Tax policies can also be designed to influence this effect. Since high income consumers are more likely to buy more expensive beverages, especially alcohol, an alcohol policy based on unit price may be less of a burden on low income household, compared to a policy based on volume.
Health levies also include minimum alcohol pricing. New laws were supposed to take effect early this year but the dissolution of the devolved government in Stormont stalled that process. It was hoped that both north and south would bring in minimum pricing at the same time to stop people heading across the border for cheaper alcohol.
The introduction of labelling on alcohol products is also included in the law, which will result in clear warnings about the danger alcohol poses to our health.
The Lancet study found that, as a proportion of total household expenditure, low income households tend to be more greatly affected by price changes compared to wealthier families.
“In the UK, the response to the possible introduction of a minimum price for alcohol was estimated to be 7.6 times larger in the poorest households, compared to the wealthiest. In Mexico, the introduction of a soft drinks tax resulted in an average of 4.2 litres less of soft drinks purchased per person, with a 17% decrease in purchases among lower income groups, and almost no change in higher income groups.”
FactCheck’s analysis of data from the NCDRisC project shows that in four countries which have had a sugary drinks tax in recent years (Mexico, France, Denmark and Hungary), average BMI (body mass index) and obesity prevalence increased or remained static, year-on-year, from 2008 to 2014.
Dr Rachel Nugent, Chair of The Lancet Taskforce said: “The evidence suggests that concerns about higher taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and soft drinks harming the poor are overstated.
“Some degree of taxation on tobacco is common in many countries, and while we are starting to see progress on alcohol taxes, there is much more governments should be doing – in both high and low income countries – to consider the careful introduction of taxes on other unhealthy products like soft drinks and snacks. Price policies such as taxes will be a key part of the response to rising rates of non-communicable diseases.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What a negative headline!There is a lot of good news in this article,reflecting the hard work done in these DEIS schools.But of course the headline just addresses the negative part!
Headline also suggests that living in an urban area is universally detrimental to educational attainment when in fact the article only refers to urban deis schools and as ailish pointed out above, the article highlights significant improvements in English and maths within those schools.
Sorry, as Aileen pointed out.
Typo in headline
“Urban pupils are more worser* at English and maths”
A neighbour of mine would tell you he supplies food to the canteen in one of these Deis school. He tell you nothing best is supplied. No expense is spared apparently. Even fizzy drinks is supplied on occasion. Compare this to where my children go to school in a small country school. The only food they get is what we send them with them in their lunchbox. Who the worst off and there was me thinking all children are suspose to be treated equally under the constitution.
Sure when I went to school we got nothing at all, walked there barefoot at 6 in the morning. Would be lucky to grab a mouthful of chalk dust at lunch time. We got some learnin’ done
“Mouthful of chalk dust”
I cried laughing after reading that.
What’s that got to do with reading?
Parental income has much less to do with the standard of education a child recieves than parental involvement. How many of the kids struggling to read do you think have a parent that reads to them? Its time for these parents to take responsibility for their kids.
The 22:1 ratio is an error in the article. This only applies up to first or second class I believe after which the 22:1 ratio is classed as a desirable ratio but not enforceable. As such you can have classes(3rd,4th,5th,6th)in Deis I schools with 23-36 children in them.
Are Ya bleedin jokin me ?
I don’t think he is langer boyyyyyy.
That’s why so many country folk are the dubs bosses in the city.as the old saying goes …what does a dub call a country person at work????
Boss
Plenty of jobs at the Journal for the ones who have spelling difficulties in the future.
Worser…….is this a word???
Used to be in the 16th century
Think it’s supposed to be play on words Claire!!
I went to a rural DEIS primary school, our class size was 33-37.
These ratios are a new enough rule.
I went to a deis school in rural Ireland, I did ok but it was an uphill battle, the school was underfunded and understaffed. chronic unemployment/underemployment means children in disadvantaged areas are less motivated as it is unlikely they will have the money for third level even if they get the grades.
generational poverty also causes a lot of these problems, its called a poverty trap for a reason
We live in a city and drive our daughter six miles out the road to go to school. A bit of a trek and hits the pocket a bit more. But smaller classes, a higher standard or education, and you know that the child is mixing with people of good stock.
“Mixing with people of good stock” that comment says a lot about you as a person. Hopefully your children won’t grow up with such a ridiculous attitude.
All education correspondents seem to take for granted that the DES claim that literacy and numeracy levels have risen due to its campaign of recent years is valid. There is insufficient evidence supporting this claim.
have your say